September 14, 2015
Eric Heginbotham, Michael Nixon, Forrest E. Morgan, Jacob Heim, Jeff Hagen, Sheng Li, Jeffrey G. Engstrom, Martin C. Libicki, Paul DeLuca, David A. Shlapak, David R. Frelinger, Burgess Laird, Kyle Brady, and Lyle J. Morris, The U.S.-China Military Scorecard: Forces, Geography, and the Evolving Balance of Power, 1996-2017 (Santa Monica, CA: RAND,September 2015).
Over the past two decades, China’s People’s Liberation Army has transformed itself from a large but antiquated force into a capable, modern military. Its technology and operational proficiency still lag behind those of the United States, but it has rapidly narrowed the gap. Moreover, China enjoys the advantage of proximity in most plausible conflict scenarios, and geographical advantage would likely neutralize many U.S. military strengths. A sound understanding of regional military issues—including forces, geography, and the evolving balance of power—will be essential for establishing appropriate U.S. political and military policies in Asia. This RAND study analyzes the development of respective Chinese and U.S. Military capabilities in ten categories of military operations across two scenarios, one centered on Taiwan and one on the Spratly Islands. The analysis is presented in ten scorecards that assess military capabilities as they have evolved over four snapshot years: 1996, 2003, 2010, and 2017. The results show that China is not close to catching up to the United States in terms of aggregate capabilities, but also that it does not need to catch up to challenge the United States on its
immediate periphery. Furthermore, although China’s ability to project power to more distant locations remains limited, its reach is growing, and in the future U.S. military dominance is likely to be challenged at greater distances from China’s coast. To maintain robust defense and deterrence capabilities in an era of fiscal constraints, the United States will need to ensure that its own operational concepts, procurement, and diplomacy anticipate future developments in Chinese military capabilities.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter One
Introduction
Chapter Two
Different Paths: Chinese and U.S. Military Development, 1996-2017
Chapter Three
Scorecard 1: Chinese Capability to Attack Air Bases
Chapter Four
Scorecard 2: Air Campaigns Over Taiwan and the Spratly Islands
Chapter Five
Scorecard 3: U.S. Penetration of Chinese Airspace
Chapter Six
Scorecard 4: U.S. Capability to Attack Chinese Air Bases
Chapter Seven
Scorecard 5: Chinese Anti-Surface Warfare
Chapter Eight
Scorecard 6: U.S. Anti-Surface Warfare Capabilities Versus Chinese Naval
Ships
Chapter Nine
Scorecard 7: U.S. Counterspace Capabilities Versus Chinese Space Systems
Chapter Ten
Scorecard 8: Chinese Counterspace Capabilities Versus U.S. Space Systems
Chapter Eleven
Scorecard 9: U.S. and Chinese Cyberwarfare Capabilities
Chapter Twelve
Scorecard 10: U.S. and Chinese Strategic Nuclear Stability
Chapter Thirteen
The Receding Frontier of U.S. Dominance
Chapter Fourteen
Implications and Recommendations
2 comments:
China 2015 and for the next few decades will be inferior to US military power.The thing is it has no need to equal the US military.The capability to attack the conus
is what is making the Pentagon angry.
In all the wars the US has engaged since its founding,the US homeland was immune and off limits to the enemy until the cold war. Then if the US had attacked the old SU,the US would have come under nuclear attack.
China wants to make sure the US wont be be able to use its superior /nuclear forces without response.Not even a million missile shields will be able to stop the PLA nm shd the US launch a n attack.The US with thousands of nm is the likely most likely to use nw first.China will respond.
As time goes on China will have enough nm for an assured destruction of the US.Since the US has such a capability many times ,the PLA must have a minimum assured destruction capability which missile shields wont be able to stop.
The best course is to live in peace and not harbor might is right mind set.
This Rand report is to create the impression the US is in danger of losing its
military dominance when its a blatant lie.Even Carter has said the the US is decades ahead of any competitor.This is to pressurize Congress into giving more
funds to the military when the US is running out of money.There was a similar story of the missile gap in the late 50s.. When the Cuba crisis unfolded the US had a ratio of 10 to one in nm.
What the report has revealed is China is able to defend itself from nuclear blackmail and if attacked ,the conus will be subjected to n strikes from the PLA.
This is what is making the wh edgy and now the current provocation in sea waters.
The US wants to be immune from any Chinese nuclear retaliation. This is naïve and even with the missile shield will provoke the Chinese into building more nw to make 100% sure China can retaliate and inflict unacceptable destruction.
These rand authors are making a living by writing such reports.They would be better off by advising the wh not to contain China .
Oh I get it. The US wants to be the top dog for eternity.Well nothing lasts for ever.Sooner or later the US will find it impossible to contain China. If it keeps on giving funds to the military,the US will one day ,god knows when,it will become a bananarepublic.
Post a Comment